Posted by coach_billyg on 8/30/2010 4:03:00 PM (view original):
interesting... i agree it can effect the viability of certain gimmick game plans or whatever you want to call them... maybe extreme game plans is a better name for them. but at the same time, it decreases your chance of winning the game from a normal game plan, assuming this is one of those cases when you are pretty likely to lose, which is generally when those extreme game plans are played. im not sure if that makes the extreme game plans more or less attractive?

If you are say 10% to win with a normal game plan, and 10.1% with a gimmick (before the change), and that was based on the gimmick having an advantage in all the categories over the other (like chance of winning the shooting battle, the rebounding battle, etc), I would say the gimmick was still always better. But, gimmicks generally benefit in one area. So you might be 10% to win with a normal game plan, with 25% of winning the shooting battle. But with a gimmick, you might be 11%, with 45% of winning the shooting battle and less chance of winning other stuff. Then, the negative effect of the engine change... would um, i dont know, maybe impact the shooting of the gimmick more than the other? Not really sure why but I guess its possible. On the whole, I would guess it mostly all evens out though. Largely I would expect the farther you get from 50%, the more this change matters (it should matter none at 50%, and a lot at say 1%), but that is as a % relative to the starting amount, not as an absolute. So a gimmick might actually be better off because the areas you are more likely to win, are effected by less, and the areas you are less likely to win, are effected more??

holy crap- i've read this post 3 times now, and think i'm falling into Limbo. Need the kick to get back...     

Posted by oldresorter on 8/30/2010 4:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by arssanguinus on 8/30/2010 3:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by oldresorter on 8/30/2010 10:47:00 AM (view original):

Posted by isack24 on 8/30/2010 10:38:00 AM (view original):

Here's the million dollar question for those people who are freaking the f*** out: have you seen anything to make you think this was a noticeable change?

the use of freaking out is an attempt to marginalize honest discussion - do you guys want to trade quips?  or do you want to talk about the engine?

back to discussion - if anything the engine seems more, not less unstable since the change, that is based on 11 or 12 games the last 2 days of my own, which is hardly a sample size to worry about

a funny math problem for all you guys in love with the recent changes - first we change ratings to make ratings more variable so we have bigger differences in performance, then we make the engine less sensative to variation so we have less variation in performance?  Sort of a +1 + (-1) = zero sort of deal isn't it?  I probably could argue against my own comment and call the two compatible for some reason or another, we all make up this stuff all the time anyhow, but you have to admit, it is sort of a funny pair of changes when viewed in a certain light, is it not?

Is some people calling others 'WIS apologists' an attempt to marginalize honest discussion as well? Good for the goose, good for the gander. 

(And no, I'm not talking about you specifically, I am just applying the general principle)



 

 

ars - you won't like the answer - but here goes - start a thread yourself on some issue of interest to you - see if anyone calls you an apologist, or if theycomment on your issue

it is all a matter of timing - comment - get flamed - fight back is the dance I now play -  this gander is not taking crap any longer from the flaming gooses to follow your quip, biblical proportions is another of your fav's, has the sky been falling lately in ars land?

So, in other words, its a one way street - they must respect you and your side, but nothing is required in return.  Got it.  Just so everyone is aware of your ground rules.  PLenty of threads, the instant you pop up with the slightest disagreement with whatever critical position the person has taken up you get in response "Yo9u are just a WIS apologist."  So, in your world, THAT is perfectly fine. . where someone doing the opposite to you. . is not. 

Not saying it wasn't a bit of an overreaction in that case on my part - although you DO get plenty of people who undeniably DO go "The sky is falling" and after a while they all sort of blur together, especially in a long thread.

Posted by coach_billyg on 8/30/2010 1:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 8/30/2010 9:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by hitman1979 on 8/30/2010 9:19:00 AM (view original):
Very concerning that seble refused to answer a simple question that OR posed on multiple occasions, an important one for this and possibly other changes.

And hughes, I appreciate your excitement for HD, but enough with the apples/oranges arguments, alright?

hitman, I do not actually have much excitement for HD ... it is a game that I play for entertainment.

What I am trying to point out is that WIS does not owe anyone the explanations that some people are asking for.  I am further showing examples of how ludicrous these questions are.

People act like because they pay a subscription price of $10-$15to play a game that they think they should have complete control of the servers, the code (and any changes), the timing of when things run on the servers, etc.

I am giving examples of other games and/or software in an attempt to show people that there is not any legal obligation for WIS to provide that information, nor is it even the normal for any software company to provide that information.

What is apples to apples is that people pay to play the simulation, not design the simulation.  If you want to program game code, take a computer class or two in college and then apply to a software company for a job ... or join an open source project.  If you want to play a college basketball simulation game, then this is your place.

the fact that you mention WIS's legal obligation to explain their changes shows just how out of touch you are with the issue you are bringing up. it has nothing to do with that, in the slightest. its about customer service, plain and simple.

that said, i think seble has done MUCH better at explaining what prompts him to make these changes, and the rationale he uses in making them. but i do think a company like WIS with a product like HD does have some obligation to explain what is changing to their users. this is a subscription game - the common business logic behind any subscription model is that the subscribers are paying for continuous improvement. i think we are entitled to *some* explanation of is going on.

All I am trying to explain here is that the level of detail that WIS provides is much higher than most software companies.  Microsoft does not explain how they change anything, nor does Google with Gmail.  They say, "We fixed X", they don't discuss code.  These are subscription services.

The World of Warcraft people do not explain exactly how they calculate hit points required to kill a Troll ... if they make changes there is no discussion of the code behind it.  That is a subscription service.  Why does WIS have to explain their code changes in detail when no one else does?

Customer service is that customers complain that there is too much variability, and they say we are reducing variability with "Fix A".  When people ask for exactly how that happens, it is silly.  Point me to another place, you pick the software company, where that kind of detail is provided for either online subscription changes or other types of software.

Posted by a_in_the_b on 8/30/2010 4:23:00 PM:
So, in other words, its a one way street - they must respect you and your side, but nothing is required in return.

Umm, no. OR's entire point is to decry the lack of respect being shown on both sides of the divide.

Trying to play the victim card here is gonna get you exactly nowhere. You sound like a right wing talk radio caller.

Posted by antonsirius on 8/30/2010 4:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by a_in_the_b on 8/30/2010 4:23:00 PM:
So, in other words, its a one way street - they must respect you and your side, but nothing is required in return.

Umm, no. OR's entire point is to decry the lack of respect being shown on both sides of the divide.

Trying to play the victim card here is gonna get you exactly nowhere. You sound like a right wing talk radio caller.

No<>  I was just pointing out that it was a two way street myself, ANton..  People have been slinging around the "Apologist' label for a long time as well.  Unilateral disarmament is not really appropriate.  If he was aiming at both sides, then why not mention what both sides are doing wrong instead of directing all of the ire in the post one way?

PLease do show me ANYWHERE In that post where he criticizes "Both sides of the divide"?  Just asked if the principle should be applied equally, which if the answer was yes should have been no problem to just say "Yes' and move on.  If saying "The Sky is falling' et all is wrong because its marginalizing the other side of the debate, then by the same principle using "Wis apologist"  And "You wouldn't disagree with ANYTHING WIS does!'  or "You must be on WIS's payroll!"  or "So to you WIS can do NO wrong and everything they do is perfect, right?" Are also by the same principle.

(And no, those were not all used by OR.  In fact,. most weren't, or at least not that I remember.  But still, the point holds.  If one side is gonna get hit when they do it, so should the other.)

Posted by oldresorter on 8/30/2010 10:53:00 AM (view original):
by the way, anton and I traded a couple of sitemails, turns out I probably agree more with him than not on most things HD, he asked me a great ?, are you mad at me or mad in general, to wit I replied, I am mad in general toward the attitude toward discussion and debate on these boards, he just happened to get caught in the crossfire.  Like many of you, he does not like the complaining about every change, almost identical to how I don't like the complaining about the complaining.

Sort of a conundrum the game finds itself in - would not some of you on both sides of this little debate agree?

quoting myself on this one for your ars in the b

I to repeat another thing I already posted, much of this is timing, comment on an issue - biblical proport sky falling goose gander flame - and now this gander has had it and is going to fight back

I get quite a few sitemails from coaches (well several) thanking me for fighting back, many avg coaches are afraid to post concerns because of the attacks made on any position questioning the game or complaining about it

to be fair to them, I must admit, it is not any fun at all fighting back, and ruins the experience, I would only assume some of you guys like this sort of stuff?

a challenge to ars in the b specifically - start a post and tell us your position on some issue, any issue, all I know about you is anyone who posts a complaint gets something about biblical chicken dinner from the sky from you

You make allot of Mileage out of ONE post in ONE thread, don't you?  I realize that post might have come at a time that you were irritated, but that isn't a reason to give it extra weight.  

ANd you don't think the opposite is true?  Many coaches don't bother coming out in favor of aspects of the game because they know that many people are going to jump down their throats for it?  I know several people who gave up posting on the board at all for just that reason;  If they chimed in on something and it wasn't the right position, they got jumped all over for it.  Apologize for not looking back further before making the reply, but have a headache and didn't read back farther.  Again, sorry I overreacted in that post.  HAd my own particular frustrations and I vented them there.  One problem with being behind a keyboard.  You type things sometimes that you wouldn't actually say.

ANd I Apologize, but I DID miss that particular post.  

 

Posted by hughesjr on 8/30/2010 4:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by coach_billyg on 8/30/2010 1:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 8/30/2010 9:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by hitman1979 on 8/30/2010 9:19:00 AM (view original):
Very concerning that seble refused to answer a simple question that OR posed on multiple occasions, an important one for this and possibly other changes.

And hughes, I appreciate your excitement for HD, but enough with the apples/oranges arguments, alright?

hitman, I do not actually have much excitement for HD ... it is a game that I play for entertainment.

What I am trying to point out is that WIS does not owe anyone the explanations that some people are asking for.  I am further showing examples of how ludicrous these questions are.

People act like because they pay a subscription price of $10-$15to play a game that they think they should have complete control of the servers, the code (and any changes), the timing of when things run on the servers, etc.

I am giving examples of other games and/or software in an attempt to show people that there is not any legal obligation for WIS to provide that information, nor is it even the normal for any software company to provide that information.

What is apples to apples is that people pay to play the simulation, not design the simulation.  If you want to program game code, take a computer class or two in college and then apply to a software company for a job ... or join an open source project.  If you want to play a college basketball simulation game, then this is your place.

the fact that you mention WIS's legal obligation to explain their changes shows just how out of touch you are with the issue you are bringing up. it has nothing to do with that, in the slightest. its about customer service, plain and simple.

that said, i think seble has done MUCH better at explaining what prompts him to make these changes, and the rationale he uses in making them. but i do think a company like WIS with a product like HD does have some obligation to explain what is changing to their users. this is a subscription game - the common business logic behind any subscription model is that the subscribers are paying for continuous improvement. i think we are entitled to *some* explanation of is going on.

All I am trying to explain here is that the level of detail that WIS provides is much higher than most software companies.  Microsoft does not explain how they change anything, nor does Google with Gmail.  They say, "We fixed X", they don't discuss code.  These are subscription services.

The World of Warcraft people do not explain exactly how they calculate hit points required to kill a Troll ... if they make changes there is no discussion of the code behind it.  That is a subscription service.  Why does WIS have to explain their code changes in detail when no one else does?

Customer service is that customers complain that there is too much variability, and they say we are reducing variability with "Fix A".  When people ask for exactly how that happens, it is silly.  Point me to another place, you pick the software company, where that kind of detail is provided for either online subscription changes or other types of software.

EA Sports is a good example of a software/gaming company that makes updates and then explains how that update will affect the game play.  They actually explain it so the average end-user can understand the changes, so they know what to look for and expect.  I know that is just one example, but for my money, they are much better at their jobs than WIS is at theirs.  Just one man's opinion.

I think that's the entire point-- OR is frustrated with the lack of civility and discussion on the boards, as well as the name-calling that goes with being uncivil.

I agree that there's too much BS on here, but also think his crusade to stop it really only leads to more of the same... and makes people miss his point sometimes because he's now off-topic, too.

my $0.02.

I forgot...while they don't "owe" it to the consumer to explain the changes, they (EA) does it as a courtesy to their customers, because a happy customer is a loyal customer and loyal customers keep the lights on!

Posted by coach_billyg on 8/30/2010 4:03:00 PM (view original):
interesting... i agree it can effect the viability of certain gimmick game plans or whatever you want to call them... maybe extreme game plans is a better name for them. but at the same time, it decreases your chance of winning the game from a normal game plan, assuming this is one of those cases when you are pretty likely to lose, which is generally when those extreme game plans are played. im not sure if that makes the extreme game plans more or less attractive?

If you are say 10% to win with a normal game plan, and 10.1% with a gimmick (before the change), and that was based on the gimmick having an advantage in all the categories over the other (like chance of winning the shooting battle, the rebounding battle, etc), I would say the gimmick was still always better. But, gimmicks generally benefit in one area. So you might be 10% to win with a normal game plan, with 25% of winning the shooting battle. But with a gimmick, you might be 11%, with 45% of winning the shooting battle and less chance of winning other stuff. Then, the negative effect of the engine change... would um, i dont know, maybe impact the shooting of the gimmick more than the other? Not really sure why but I guess its possible. On the whole, I would guess it mostly all evens out though. Largely I would expect the farther you get from 50%, the more this change matters (it should matter none at 50%, and a lot at say 1%), but that is as a % relative to the starting amount, not as an absolute. So a gimmick might actually be better off because the areas you are more likely to win, are effected by less, and the areas you are less likely to win, are effected more??

Would be interesting to get some feedback on coaches utilizing the extreme game planning ( I like that phrase) to see if they are experiencing any changes.
PS: The chicken little reference was meant for the knee jerk reactionists who seem to take over too many of these threads, not the numerous participants who voice valid concerns and questions on both sides of the issues ;(

Posted by wronoj on 8/30/2010 5:04:00 PM (view original):
I think that's the entire point-- OR is frustrated with the lack of civility and discussion on the boards, as well as the name-calling that goes with being uncivil.

I agree that there's too much BS on here, but also think his crusade to stop it really only leads to more of the same... and makes people miss his point sometimes because he's now off-topic, too.

my $0.02.

+1

Posted by wronoj on 8/30/2010 5:04:00 PM (view original):
I think that's the entire point-- OR is frustrated with the lack of civility and discussion on the boards, as well as the name-calling that goes with being uncivil.

I agree that there's too much BS on here, but also think his crusade to stop it really only leads to more of the same... and makes people miss his point sometimes because he's now off-topic, too.

my $0.02.

how dare you bring sense and reason onto these forums. didn't you hear? we made a separate forum for that, but nobody really posts there, or reads it, but still, people will tell you to go post there anyway  :X

Posted by hughesjr on 8/30/2010 4:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by coach_billyg on 8/30/2010 1:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 8/30/2010 9:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by hitman1979 on 8/30/2010 9:19:00 AM (view original):
Very concerning that seble refused to answer a simple question that OR posed on multiple occasions, an important one for this and possibly other changes.

And hughes, I appreciate your excitement for HD, but enough with the apples/oranges arguments, alright?

hitman, I do not actually have much excitement for HD ... it is a game that I play for entertainment.

What I am trying to point out is that WIS does not owe anyone the explanations that some people are asking for.  I am further showing examples of how ludicrous these questions are.

People act like because they pay a subscription price of $10-$15to play a game that they think they should have complete control of the servers, the code (and any changes), the timing of when things run on the servers, etc.

I am giving examples of other games and/or software in an attempt to show people that there is not any legal obligation for WIS to provide that information, nor is it even the normal for any software company to provide that information.

What is apples to apples is that people pay to play the simulation, not design the simulation.  If you want to program game code, take a computer class or two in college and then apply to a software company for a job ... or join an open source project.  If you want to play a college basketball simulation game, then this is your place.

the fact that you mention WIS's legal obligation to explain their changes shows just how out of touch you are with the issue you are bringing up. it has nothing to do with that, in the slightest. its about customer service, plain and simple.

that said, i think seble has done MUCH better at explaining what prompts him to make these changes, and the rationale he uses in making them. but i do think a company like WIS with a product like HD does have some obligation to explain what is changing to their users. this is a subscription game - the common business logic behind any subscription model is that the subscribers are paying for continuous improvement. i think we are entitled to *some* explanation of is going on.

All I am trying to explain here is that the level of detail that WIS provides is much higher than most software companies.  Microsoft does not explain how they change anything, nor does Google with Gmail.  They say, "We fixed X", they don't discuss code.  These are subscription services.

The World of Warcraft people do not explain exactly how they calculate hit points required to kill a Troll ... if they make changes there is no discussion of the code behind it.  That is a subscription service.  Why does WIS have to explain their code changes in detail when no one else does?

Customer service is that customers complain that there is too much variability, and they say we are reducing variability with "Fix A".  When people ask for exactly how that happens, it is silly.  Point me to another place, you pick the software company, where that kind of detail is provided for either online subscription changes or other types of software.

thats kind of a fastball, right down the middle. the company i work at provides software to auto recyclers to help them manage their business... we make changes regularly. we give moderately descriptive change logs, you have to walk a fine line between giving too little info and too much with our customer base (explaining too much is actually worse than too little). but we also field questions about changes we make at 50+ trade shows per year, and will spend hours with a single customer if thats what it takes to explain things to him, or to fully understand his feedback. it happens at every show. our customer feedback is about 90% of the driving force behind any change we make, if not more, as it should be...

anyway, all i was getting at is, good customer service means there is an open 2 way dialogue between you and your customers. it has nothing to do with legal obligations, until customer service fails completely (and i do mean completely).

edit: for what its worth, blizzard is THE LAST company you should be considering for a standard for quality customer service. those guys are complete ****. they make great games, but that is not what customer service is about.

The reason they have to explain it is we pay to play this game. Warcraft gives vivid details of everything. I can tell you what 30 resilience adds to my stats. Can you tell me what 30 ATH adds to your player?

The fact is that WIS, out of any game companies, gives the least information about how things work. By Far. We have no idea what does what, except that after playing a ton you might pick up some subtle trends. And then they change the game.